North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime

North Carolina Court of Appeals does not believe cops can detect nervousness in a car passing by at 65 MPH. The second-highest court in North Carolina last week ruled police had no business stopping a car because its occupants appeared to be driving while nervous. On April 15, 2011, a pair of Sampson County sheriff's deputies were running a speed trap on Interstate 40 when they noticed a green minivan. Corporal Bass and Pope each testified the vehicle slowed from 73 MPH to 65 MPH in the 70 MPH zone and that the driver and passenger stared straight ahead and "appeared nervous" as they passed.
The officers pulled out and caught up to the minivan. When the patrol car pulled along side, the minivan occupants did not make eye contact. The deputies claimed they saw the vehicle cross the fog line and was driving slowly, so they pulled it over for "unsafe movement." A dashcam video of the incident shows no crossing of the fog line or other evidence of unsafe driving.

Gina Canty, the driver, was given a warning. She also consented to a search that uncovered a revolver and a rifle in a suitcase belonging to the passenger, her ex-husband Nathaniel Canty. A Sampson County Superior Court judge found Nathaniel Canty guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, a three-judge panel began poking holes in the police account of events.

"We find it hard to believe that these officers could tell Ms. Canty and defendant were 'nervous' as they passed by the officers on the highway and as the officers momentarily rode alongside them," Judge Cheri Beasley wrote for the court.

The judges also dismissed the idea that the minivan's slowing after seeing a patrol car running a speed trap.

"The reduction in speed standing alone could be explained a number of different ways, including normal apprehension many people feel when approaching a law enforcement officer," Judge Beasley wrote. "Nervousness, failure to make eye contact with law enforcement, and a relatively small reduction in speed is 'conduct falling within the broad range of what can be described as normal driving behavior... Based on the totality of the circumstances, these officers lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop that resulted in the search and seizure of the weapons in this case."

The judges declared the lawyer in this case should have filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered during the traffic stop. Because the defense counsel was "ineffective," the three-judge panel ordered a new trial in which the motion to suppress would likely succeed.

A copy of the decision is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below.

Apparently, 99% of Mr. Sherlock Holmes' findings would also be ruled "insufficient". If police officers was able to _correctly_ detect the crime just by momentarily looking at the passing vehicle, they only can be commended for their skill.

Why would someone consent to the search of the vehicle, is totally different question. Especially knowing that illegal items will be found. First they allow search, then they scramble to suppress what was found. Wouldn't it be easier to simply say "No, I don't consent"?

they most likely would have searched anyway,based upon what they already considered p,c. to pull the veh. over.you really think these 2 haven,t lied in the past,have lied in the present,and will lie in the future?

Quite correct. The 2 cops lied in their testimony about fogline being crossed when the dash-cam proves otherwise, so you're quite right to suggest they probably lied in the past, and will lie again in the future. Perhaps it's grounds to have every case where a conviction was secured on the "strength" of testimony and evidence of these 2 deceitful police officers, needs to be re-examined with this new understanding of the inherent dishonesty of the police-officers conduct in this case. And of course the credibility of any of their future policing activities should be automatically considered suspect. Good point. Maxim in law: "False in one aspect, false in all".

I was there the day the officers testified. This article DOES NOT depict the testimony given by the officers, and the fact of the case is this:

When the van ran off of the roadway to the right, the deputies patrol car was in lane one or the lane farthest to the left, directly beside the van. The deputies were looking inside the vehicle, checking for seat belts, identifying the occupants inside, checking for children in the car prior to the traffic stop. You know, making sure it's safe to conduct a traffic stop? There's no way the vehicle would be on camera during that time because the camera was pointing forward, while the suspect vehicle was to the right of the camera out of view. Call it a lie, fib, or believe these officers testimony, your choice. Either way, the guy's a convicted felon and will not be getting his guns back, so find something else to bitch about.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.